4 ms·

Feds Say Man Deserved Arrest Because Jacket Said ‘Occupy Everything’

35 points by cyphersanctus 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago
TIL: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/40/II/C/61/IV/6135 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/40/II/C/61/IV/6135 40 U.S.C. § 6135 Parades, assemblages, and display of flags in the Supreme Court Building and grounds It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.
- dmix 14y ago
  Does that apply to the Supreme Court not being able to display things or the citizens visiting it wearing clothing with signs?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Visitors.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - dmix 14y ago
      > wearing clothing with signs?
      - saraid216 14y ago
        That counts as a device, yes.
glimcat 14y ago
The display clause prohibits advertising your party / movement / whatever in the Supreme Court building. It's a specific exemption intended to avoid influencing the impartiality of the group responsible for making determinations about the Constitution, which strikes me as not such a dumb idea. It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement. There are some genuinely stupid acts of government out there like free speech zones and all the security theatre, or attacking photographers. This is not one of them. Want something to get mad at the government about today? Congress is currently playing an $85 billion dollar game of chicken. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572068/sequester-its-just-dumb-obama-says/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572068/sequester-its-j...
- FreezerburnV 14y ago
  And yet, the president originally supported the sequestration cuts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kj1y3q92sog https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=... And Republicans were willing to give the administration more flexibility in how the cuts were made: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/obama-urges-congress-to-find-compromise-on-cuts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/obama-urges-co... Make of that what you will.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  >The display clause prohibits advertising your party / movement / whatever in the Supreme Court building. It's a specific exemption intended to avoid influencing the impartiality of the group responsible for making determinations about the Constitution, which strikes me as not such a dumb idea. Okay, now I get it. It sounds like they may be applying it wrongly here, unless they were deciding a case involving or related to the occupy movement.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Read the law again, it doesn't depend on whatever case is being debated, it's generic in scope. Any political banner, display, etc. is excluded, not just ones pertaining to a case being argued.
mpyne 14y ago
You know, I was going to post about how stupid the gov't was on this from reading the title. But he wasn't arrested simply because of his jacket. He was arrested because his jacket was political in nature, he was asked to take it off or leave, and he refused to leave. If I asked someone to leave my business and they didn't, I'd have them removed by police too if it became necessary. For those who think there are free speech rights in a judicial building, try being the one to make repeated outbursts in a courtroom. If nothing else the government is being consistent here.
- gknoy 14y ago
  While they don't have to tell him that the Supreme Court is a first-amendment free zone, that's a point of law that I would bet MOST Americans are unaware of. I certainly was. If they'd said, "Sir, the law prohibits wearing clothing that advertise things of a political nature in this building. Please take it off or leave," rather than simply telling him to remove it or leave, he might have been more likely to comply. On the other hand, it seems pretty WTF-worthy that the first amendment be rendered void in a building charged with protecting it.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    > On the other hand, it seems pretty WTF-worthy that the first amendment be rendered void in a building charged with protecting it. If you consider this to be a case of voiding the First Amendment, you'll also be interested to know that the First Amendment is also voided in the case of giving jurors relevant information in the middle of a court case.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago
      Care to give an example that doesn't violate the Rules of Criminal Procedure?
      - saraid216 14y ago
        That was actually my point.
SparrowOS 14y ago
Pearl Jam is cum on toast.

35 points by cyphersanctus 14y ago

TIL: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/40/II/C/61/IV/6135 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/40/II/C/61/IV/6135 40 U.S.C. § 6135 Parades, assemblages, and display of flags in the Supreme Court Building and grounds It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.

dmix 14y ago
Does that apply to the Supreme Court not being able to display things or the citizens visiting it wearing clothing with signs?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Visitors.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - dmix 14y ago
    > wearing clothing with signs?
    - saraid216 14y ago
      That counts as a device, yes.

glimcat 14y ago

The display clause prohibits advertising your party / movement / whatever in the Supreme Court building. It's a specific exemption intended to avoid influencing the impartiality of the group responsible for making determinations about the Constitution, which strikes me as not such a dumb idea. It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement. There are some genuinely stupid acts of government out there like free speech zones and all the security theatre, or attacking photographers. This is not one of them. Want something to get mad at the government about today? Congress is currently playing an $85 billion dollar game of chicken. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572068/sequester-its-just-dumb-obama-says/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572068/sequester-its-j...

FreezerburnV 14y ago
And yet, the president originally supported the sequestration cuts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kj1y3q92sog https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=... And Republicans were willing to give the administration more flexibility in how the cuts were made: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/obama-urges-congress-to-find-compromise-on-cuts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/obama-urges-co... Make of that what you will.
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
>The display clause prohibits advertising your party / movement / whatever in the Supreme Court building. It's a specific exemption intended to avoid influencing the impartiality of the group responsible for making determinations about the Constitution, which strikes me as not such a dumb idea. Okay, now I get it. It sounds like they may be applying it wrongly here, unless they were deciding a case involving or related to the occupy movement.
- mpyne 14y ago
  Read the law again, it doesn't depend on whatever case is being debated, it's generic in scope. Any political banner, display, etc. is excluded, not just ones pertaining to a case being argued.

mpyne 14y ago

You know, I was going to post about how stupid the gov't was on this from reading the title. But he wasn't arrested simply because of his jacket. He was arrested because his jacket was political in nature, he was asked to take it off or leave, and he refused to leave. If I asked someone to leave my business and they didn't, I'd have them removed by police too if it became necessary. For those who think there are free speech rights in a judicial building, try being the one to make repeated outbursts in a courtroom. If nothing else the government is being consistent here.

gknoy 14y ago
While they don't have to tell him that the Supreme Court is a first-amendment free zone, that's a point of law that I would bet MOST Americans are unaware of. I certainly was. If they'd said, "Sir, the law prohibits wearing clothing that advertise things of a political nature in this building. Please take it off or leave," rather than simply telling him to remove it or leave, he might have been more likely to comply. On the other hand, it seems pretty WTF-worthy that the first amendment be rendered void in a building charged with protecting it.
- saraid216 14y ago
  > On the other hand, it seems pretty WTF-worthy that the first amendment be rendered void in a building charged with protecting it. If you consider this to be a case of voiding the First Amendment, you'll also be interested to know that the First Amendment is also voided in the case of giving jurors relevant information in the middle of a court case.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago
    Care to give an example that doesn't violate the Rules of Criminal Procedure?
    - saraid216 14y ago
      That was actually my point.

SparrowOS 14y ago

Pearl Jam is cum on toast.